NATIONAL REFORM INTOLERANT AND OPPRESSIVE.
Why Not Learn the Lesson?
THERE doubtless are many tolerant, good men connected with the National Reform Association, the organ of which is the Christian Statesman; but we have contended for years that the principles of the movement were intolerant, un-American, oppressive, unchristian. The chief objects of the association are thus set forth in Article II. of its constitution:— The objects of this society shall be to maintain existing Christian features in the American Government; to promote needed reforms in the action of the government touching the Sabbath, the institution of the family, the religious element in education, the oath, and public morality as affected by the liquor traffic, and other kindred evils; and to secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will declare the nation’s allegiance to Jesus Christ and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and to indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniably legal basis in the fundamental law of the land. Of course one can easily see that this means, not the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, not “the moral laws of the Christian religion,” not “Christian laws, institutions, and usages,” but man’s interpretation of all these—human laws. And human interpretation of God’s law by those having power, whether in Church or State, has always resulted in intolerance and oppression. Well, the editor of the Christian Statesman is himself tasting an intolerance which is to him distasteful. Would that he might see that it is but the logical outworking of the principles he has been advocating for years. He thus states his case in an editorial titled “The Statesman Still Fettered,” in that paper of June, 1898:— As recorded in this paper a year ago, the Christian liberty of its editor-in-chief was restricted by the action of the highest court of the branch of the visible church with which he is connected. At its meeting in June, 1897, the editor was placed under the necessity on the one hand of setting himself in conflict with the authority of that court, or on the other hand of discontinuing his discussions in these columns on the subject of the organic unity of the church of Christ. Not wishing to withdraw from his church, the National Reformed Presbyterian, he announced that he would bring the matter up the following year. The editor tells us that during the year past he has not attempted “to edit, in any proper sense of the word, a paper such as the Statesman was for thirty years—a paper in which were discussed with unrestricted Christian liberty all possible questions in Church and State.” Previous to a year ago the editor presented what he thought to be the teachings of the Bible on “the unity of the visible church.” He says:— But when liberty to do this was denied, the editor, in self-respect, could not keep up the sham of appearing to do it, while in fact wearing a muzzle, softly cushioned as it might be. So he has simply kept the paper in a state of suspended animation. In a sense it is but the shriveled dead body of the Statesman, but it is yet unburied, and it awaits, under much contumely heaped upon it, its deliverance from the ecclesiastical bonds that might have been expected to consign it hopelessly to the grave. Of the editor’s appeal this year, he speaks as follows:— At the last meeting of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod just held at Walton, N. Y., a respectful request was made for the removal of this limitation of the right of free discussion. Attention was called to the reproach put upon the grand old church which has ever heretofore stood in the front rank of the champions of all true Christian liberty, by the authoritative placing of a gag in the mouth of one of her members who has served her as well as he knew how for over thirty-five years of public life. It was calmly and clearly stated to the court that the spirit which would impose and perpetuate such a restriction of Christian liberty was in essence the same as that which makes human interpretation of divine law the infallible standard of morals, in the room of the divine law itself. It is this spirit of intolerance toward other interpretations of the divine law, and of human standards accepted by different interpreters, all equally fallible, as in harmony with the ultimate standard of God’s law, that will yet slay the witnesses for Christ’s full and finished testimony, if they be not already slain. But in view of such considerations the court imposing the restriction decided by a large majority for the present not to remove it. The editor states the absolute truth; but why can he not see that the association which he upholds demands the very thing he condemns. The only true interpreter of God’s law is God’s Spirit, and the decision rests between the individual soul and God. Stepping between that soul and God is the essence of the Papacy, whether it be found in the Vatican, the Spanish Inquisition, the National Reform Association, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, or any other religious organization or church whatsoever. There is also revealed in this another principle which has mightily helped on the work of persecution in all ages. Speaking of the failure to remove the restrictions on his liberty, the editor continues:— It is due to many of the majority to say that had the vote been taken squarely on the main question they would not have consented to what they are convinced is a violation of the law of Christian freedom of discussion. But as the vote was taken to postpone indefinitely the request of the editor of the Statesman for the restoration of his editorial freedom, and as many feared that the consideration of this request at the time would be injurious to the peace and welfare of the church, they voted with7those whose conscientious judgment regards the bonds imposed by the court as the perpetual obligation of righteous law. And so also many believed in Jesus, “but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue.” Expediency and policy, other names for moral cowardice, where right principles are at stake, have many times crucified Christ in the suppression of His truth. A brave thought uttered at the time the Spirit gave it, a true word spoken at the time God placed it on the tongue, would have saved many a man and church from a degrading and worldly bondage, but the thought was crucified, the word died, and through expediency and policy, slavery was exalted. Of course the editor in question sees it when applied to himself; God wants him and everybody else to see it as it would be when applied by themselves to others. Put yourself in the place of the “heretic;” in other words, practise the Golden Rule. Now we are not particularly concerned in this intra-church squabble in the Reformed Presbyterian body. What we write this for is to show that the principles so clearly condemned by the editor of the Christian Statesman are the very principles of the National Reform Association, principles which are permeating the young people’s organizations, the W. C. T. U., and the Law and Order and Citizenship Leagues, the Sunday Unions, and kindred organizations. It is not with the persons who compose these organizations that the evil lies, but in the principles which make men evil. The more conscientious the man, the worse tyrant he becomes when controlled by a tyrannical principle. We pray, we hope, that many will read the truth in this object lesson, and among them the editor of the Christian Statesman, and have the courage to act the truth.